JERUSALEM:
Socrates was the first thinker to contend that it is better to suffer
injustice than to perpetrate it. Those who carry out injustices, he argued,
corrupt their own souls and are ultimately ruined from within.

The great Greek philosopher
consequently maintained that society helps the criminal by imposing upon him
or her a penalty, since the punishment serves to cleanse the soul and thus
allows the lawbreaker to live a more just life. Accordingly, courts of law
that mete out sentences -- insofar as they follow universal principles of
justice -- not only protect society from offenders, but also save offenders
from themselves.

It is precisely in the
context of Socrates’ teachings that Sharon’s government and United Nations
Security Council should understand the ruling regarding Israel’s separation
barrier. Although the International Court of Justice (ICJ) claimed that
Israel is in breach of international law and is therefore guilty of
wrongdoing, its decision is, paradoxically, also pro-Israeli.

Let’s begin with the facts.
The so-called separation barrier is made up of a series of fences, trenches,
walls, and patrol roads, which are not constructed on the internationally
recognized border between Israel and the occupied West Bank and East
Jerusalem, but rather deep inside Palestinian territories.

The length of the proposed
barrier, which winds around Jewish settlements and surrounds Palestinian
villages, transforming them, as it were, into islands, is about 650 km --
more than twice the length of the international border. It often runs in
between Palestinian communities, thus undermining the argument that the
barrier is being built to separate Israelis from Palestinians and in this
way to ensure the security of the former.

Rather, the barrier is
being employed as a mechanism to expropriate Palestinian land and create
facts on the ground that will affect any future arrangement between Israel
and the Palestinians. As in the case of the Jewish settlements, it is being
used to annex Palestinian territories and has in effect become a barrier
against peace, rather than a barrier against terrorists.

In its ruling the ICJ made
clear that the barrier’s repercussions on basic rights are appalling.
According to the ICJ, “the wall, along the route chosen, and its associated
regime, gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the
territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that
route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of
national security or public order.”

Thus, the ICJ recognized
that the separation barrier, which was ostensibly built to satisfy security
needs, is being used as an extremely efficient weapon of dispossession. It
took into account that over 875,000 Palestinians will be directly affected
by the barrier, amounting to 38 percent of the West Bank population.
Children are already unable to reach schools, adults are unable to reach
work, and patients do not have access to hospitals. The economic
ramifications have been just as bad, inflicting further suffering on a whole
society, 50 percent of which, as the World Bank has claimed, are already
living under conditions of grinding poverty -- defined at less than US$2.1
per day. All of which suggests that the Palestinians' basic rights to
freedom of movement and livelihood as well as the rights to education,
health and even burial are being systematically abused.

While the Court did not say
as much, its ruling also suggests that there is a qualitative difference
between a barrier whose function is to demarcate a border between two
countries, and a barrier used to create a prison. Israel, so the verdict
implies, has built a prison, placing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians
“behind bars” and thus punishing a whole population.

Yet, the ICJ’s ruling not
only aims to protect the Palestinians from collective punishment, but also
hopes to protect Israel from itself. By trying to stop the construction of a
barrier that violates the basic rights of hundreds of thousands of people,
the judges are also attempting to cleanse Israel, which, according to
international law, has turned into a criminal state.

While the Court’s ruling
has no claws, it should be understood as an opportunity. The U.S. together
with other members of the Security Council should use it in order to insist
that Israel dismantle the separation barrier and immediately enter
diplomatic negotiations with its Palestinian neighbors. Getting the two
parties back to the negotiation table is the only way to reach a viable
peace. Only peace -- and not barriers or military might -- can put an end to
the vicious cycle of violence plaguing the Middle East.